More: Iran deal reached, Obama hails step towards 'more hopeful world'| Reuters (14. July 2015)
If only Obama could be re-elected for a third term!
News Iran nuclear agreement is a triumph for diplomacy
- Thread starter Second Summer
- Start date
If only Obama could be re-elected for a third term!
I don't think he wants a third term - I think he's relieved that it's almost over. The poor guy has faced almost every conceivable disaster.
I'm looking forward to seeing what he will be doing with the rest of his life, once he's able to speak more freely.
I'm looking forward to seeing what he will be doing with the rest of his life, once he's able to speak more freely.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
OP
OP
That's the kind of thing the loony right would probably argue for ...We should just nuke Iran. That'd show 'em.
According to Mike Huckabee:
In other words, Obama is a nazi collaborator and Iran is the Nazis.Tell Congress to do their constitutional duty & reject the Obama-Kerry #IranDeal --> No Deal For Iran - Mike Huckabee for President
The way the Holocaust is being used in politics today is sickening.
ledboots
Peace
“Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map.”
— President Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, September 21, 2011
------
By lifting sanctions against Iran, I am assuming this means weapons purchases as well. Not the greatest of ideas, even if Iran actually keeps to its part of the deal by halting nuclear program.
I can't believe anyone thinks Obama would be good in a third term, especially when discussing the middle east situation. It is in a worse mess than I can remember since 1968.
— President Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, September 21, 2011
------
By lifting sanctions against Iran, I am assuming this means weapons purchases as well. Not the greatest of ideas, even if Iran actually keeps to its part of the deal by halting nuclear program.
I can't believe anyone thinks Obama would be good in a third term, especially when discussing the middle east situation. It is in a worse mess than I can remember since 1968.
Last edited:
I have a hard time to think of a Republican or Tea Bagger who could do a better job there, so I don't really agree with your argument.
But, you might remember how the situation in the Middle East was in, e.g. during the Iran hostage crisis or during the Iran-Iraq war. What specifically makes you think it is "a worse mess" now compared to those times. And I am not even asking you about George W Bush's Iraq invasion...
Well to be fair, I don't think there's anyone that deserves a third term as president... Also lets be honest, Obama's legacy, what he will forever be remembered for is the way he helped social liberties progress in a big way, specifically GBLTQ and I really hope we continue to elect people who will continue that progression. He won't be remembered for being a diplomatic or foreign policy virtuoso. However I don't think the Iran deal is a bad thing, the way *I* interpret it is that "lifting sanctions" isn't as straight forward as it sounds. The way I've interpreted it is that Iran would be kept on a very short (unsanctioned lol) leash. So as I see it ledboot's assumption that Iran would be free to build weapons is incorrect. Iran will be required to submit to frequent inspections to make sure they don't do that.
OP
OP
Not immediately:
Iran nuclear talks: 'Historic' agreement struck - BBC News
While the Iranian regime has a questionable human rights record, it's actually better than Saudi Arabia in that respect. For example, consider the status of women. The sanctions are hurting normal people and alienates them from the West. Iran is a reliable and capable force in the fight against the Islamic State. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, you wonder who's side they're on sometimes.
I agree that the Middle East situation is probably worse than ever in many ways, but this has only gotten worse every year for several decades. Obama has made the situation worse with the the way his administration has waged the Drone War, and possibly by action / in-action in regards to Libya, and of course the failure to develop capable Iraqi military forces. However, I think the bulk of blame for the Middle East mess should be attributed to previous right-wing / conservative governments in the US, Israel and their dependant / allied governments in the region.
OP
OP
ledboots
Peace
I'm sure that a deal with Iran will be just dandy, and everyone will hold hands, skipping happily into the sun-dappled forest.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
I don't understand how this benefits us. We loosen the sanctions on Iran and they promise not to build a nuclear bomb.
Wouldn't loosening the sanctions actually give them more opportunity to build a bomb? And the unfreezing of their assets will probably not be used to feed the people or improve infrastructure...
Wouldn't loosening the sanctions actually give them more opportunity to build a bomb? And the unfreezing of their assets will probably not be used to feed the people or improve infrastructure...
OP
OP
If only that were the case. The US Congress is filled up with Christian Zionist Republicans whose biggest dream is a military confrontation with Iran.
Why do you think they are more inclined to spend their resources on building an atom bomb, which would put them in a similar isolated position as North Korea, than spending on their people?
Also, let's not forget that they will be very closely monitored. Ever more precise satellite images combined with IAEA inspections should give us the tools necessary to detect any irregularities.
Last edited:
ledboots
Peace
The term Zionist is considered offensive by many in the US. I know what it used to mean, but it has morphed into a slur here.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Once you're part of the nuclear club, other countries treat you very differently. Iran knows this. Once you have the bomb, it's not so easy for other countries to push you around. (Friend or foe).
Iran is not Europe. They will spend any extra money they get on the military, and not just defensive capabilities.
Inspections are worthless if they are known and planned in advance. Iran will not allow surprise inspections.
There is a limit to satellite data unless they have x-ray vision. Sure a satellite could show a truck going back and forth between a facility in high definition, but that doesn't prove the contents of the truck.[/QUOTE]
OP
OP
What is a better term for a Christian right-winger with an uncanny love and support for equally right-wing ultra nationalist Jews? Maybe 'ultra-zionist' would be more correct?
OP
OP
Let's face it, the reception amongst arms control analysts, i.e. experts on this problem, was overwhelmingly positive. The international reaction to the agreement was also quite positive. I think Americans are more sceptical because of their particular domestic political situation.
I'm obviously no expert, but the provisions in the agreement seem pretty convincing to me.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're right, Iran is not Europe. They have a lot of enemies in the region, including the lunatic ISIS organisation in their neighbouring countries. If they were to spend some of the money on their military, it would be quite justified.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Source?
Time will tell. But I'm willing to bet that they will use the funds, not to defend themselves, but to extend their reach in the area. And given enough time, they will find ways to circumvent the controls put in place.
ledboots
Peace
"Right-wing ultra nationalist Jews?" "Uncanny love?" I think your anti-Jew/Israel bias is showing.
Similar threads
